Meet the Creationist Helping to Change Arizona School Standards on Evolution

[Waddy]

You're a teacher with 30+ years experience? Wow.



"Just a theory"? You taught science for 30+ years and you don't know what a scientific theory is? Wow. Just wow.



WTF! Creationism and ID are NOT "other theories". You taught science for 30+ years and you don't even know what a ****ing scientific theory is? Pathetic and Disgusting.

You were a terrible teacher and did your students a great disservice. You were unwilling to learn even the most rudimentary facts about the subject you teach. You undoubtedly had a negative effect on many many children who came through your "classroom". Read some books on the theory of education, and learn the damage you've done. Oh never mind, you weren't even willing to spend 10 minutes learning about the subject you actually taught.


They're NOT ****ing theories. Didn't you care enough about your students to learn even the most basic facts about what you "taught"? Pathetic.



No **** Sherlock, because they are NOT theories. Christ. Right now, go and spend 10 minutes learning what a Scientific Theory is. And then feel shame knowing that for 30 years you were too lazy to even learn this most elementary fact about the subject you taught.




Yep, and literally 10 minutes of research would have quickly showed you how wrong all those people were. But over your 30 years of teaching you couldn't spend even 10 minutes learning about the subject you supposedly teach. Again, that is pathetic.



No, apparently you were always willing to indoctrinate other people's children into your religion. Pathetic.



This from the person who wasn't even willing to spend 10 ****ing minutes learning about the course they taught. You did nothing but limit the academic inquiry of your students on a daily basis. Pathetic..

So afraid to open up a discussion. Pathetic.

 

[HenryChinaski]

So afraid to open up a discussion. Pathetic.

There’s nothing to discuss. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Intelligent design is not a Scientific concept, it’s a philosophy of ignorance. All you’re looking to do is to preach your religion. How about you keep your religious beliefs in church where they belong or in your home and out of scientific curriculum.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

So afraid to open up a discussion. Pathetic.

What's even more pathetic is lying about being a teacher and about science.

 

[Waddy]

There’s nothing to discuss. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Intelligent design is not a Scientific concept, it’s a philosophy of ignorance. All you’re looking to do is to preach your religion. How about you keep your religious beliefs in church where they belong or in your home and out of scientific curriculum.

I don't know where you got that I believe any of those ideas. That's a straw man. Evolution is the correct answer, but it gets you nowhere with students if you force feed it to them and are unwilling to take the time to discuss and logically discredit those false ideas.

 

[Waddy]

What's even more pathetic is lying about being a teacher and about science.

Believe what you want. Attacking me personally is the tactic of an incompetent who never taught a class or did much of anything else.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Believe what you want. Attacking me personally is the tactic of an incompetent who never taught a class or did much of anything else.

I havem't attacked you peromally.

You dom't umderstamd sciemce.

You dom't umderstamd acadenia.

You are a creatiomist. Muff said.

 

[Deuce]

I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly. You haven't explained anything really. It would require a great deal more in-depth explanation to satisfy most students. In fact, I would probably put a chart up showing the various challenges to evolution and what they're based on. Discussing these then would make it abundantly clear to my students that evolution has the only real scientific support out there. I would let evolution prove itself to these students. Of their own free will and reasoning powers they would then come to see the flaws in these other ideas and be much more likely to support evolution.

Every single challenge? You don’t have time to do that. You can’t fit that much bull**** on a PowerPoint slide

 

[MSgt]

nope because i dont judge groups that way because i know better and reality proves it wrong.

it would be just as dishonest, biased and hypocritical as saying "have you ever considered <insert name here> blacks, whites, latinos, women, men, gays, straights, christians, muslims, jews etc etc erned today's grouping"

You are talking about a general sense of stereotyping (of which is often enough a true representation but also not).

But 14,000,000 million votes to Donald Trump in the Republican Primaries tell us that this grouping is a matter of reality. This was not a Sanders/Clinton divide seen in the Democratic Primaries, nor the alarming amount of Democrat voters who later abstained in the General. And a very high percentage of Republicans approving of Donald Trump today, no matter his bad domestic/international policies, his systematic dismantling of American prestige and influence all over the world, and his poor behavior, also validates that grouping.

 

[noonereal]

"Taught" can be many things. I think you have to acknowledge and address what kids are aware of and often asking about. And for over 30+ years, that's exactly what I did every school term. I explained that evolution is just a theory, but backed by quite a bit of evidence, but there are other theories out there, like creationism and intelligent design. Those theories don't have much support in the scientific community but there are lots of people who do support those theories. I was never afraid to discuss any issue, no matter what the school board might say. What I detest is limiting academic inquiry.

What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

 

[wellwisher]

Then you're not a teacher, or at least not a good one.

If you think about it, I'm sure you'll see the flaw in this. By your logic, if students are interested in a flat earth, you're going to start wasting your science class teaching the "theories" of flat earthers?

And what if students are then interested in Big Foot? Are you going to spend a couple of classes on that? Then there's Area 51, Lizard people, the moon landing "hoax", and on and on.

You could literally spend an entire year in science class without ever learning one thing about science.

The main problem with evolution is the theory does not start life at the beginning. The inception of life is handed off to a different area of science called abiogenesis. Evolution begins after the first replicators appears, which leaves out the first several hundred million years.

An analogy is like making a theory of your life, that begins when you are 18 years old, until the present. When strange things happen, you explain in terms of just adulthood. The problem is, things that happen in childhood, can have an impact of the rest of one's life. However, if you start at 18, these things will not be part of the story. The conclusions can often be out of context with the all the data.

Another problem is earth science is currently teaching its own version of the flat earth. Are you aware that in 2004 several teams of scientists discovered that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface of the earth? Everything that is being taught about the earth and about climate, does not yet take this into account. What is taught is an obsolete mythology.

The rotating cote is the most energy intensive earth variable, next to the influence of the sun. However, it is not part of the taught science equation. None of the climate change computer models has this variable as part of their equation. If you leave out something so significant, you will have problems making accurate and believable predictions.

The new core of the earth is new and changes everything we know. However, change is not easy for those at the top of their profession, who control what is taught.

https://www.livescience.com/9313-earth-core-rotates-faster-surface-study-confirms.html

 

[JustHanging]

So afraid to open up a discussion. Pathetic.

What? I'm not afraid to open a discussion with the likes of you. Let's begin:


You claim to have taught science for 30+ years. You do not know one the most basic facts of science: what a scientific theory is. How do you explain this ignorance?

 

[JustHanging]

The main problem with evolution is the theory does not start life at the beginning. The inception of life is handed off to a different area of science called abiogenesis. Evolution begins after the first replicators appears, which leaves out the first several hundred million years.

How is that a "problem" for the TOE? The TOE is what it is, it says nothing about the beginning of life. That's like saying the problem with the Theory of Gravity is it doesn't tell us where matter came from.

An analogy is like making a theory of your life, that begins when you are 18 years old, until the present. When strange things happen, you explain in terms of just adulthood. The problem is, things that happen in childhood, can have an impact of the rest of one's life. However, if you start at 18, these things will not be part of the story. The conclusions can often be out of context with the all the data.

See above.

Another problem is earth science is currently teaching its own version of the flat earth.

If you believe this, you don't understand anything about science.

Are you aware that in 2004 several teams of scientists discovered that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface of the earth? Everything that is being taught about the earth and about climate, does not yet take this into account. What is taught is an obsolete mythology.

Nor do you understand the meaning of the word mythology. You cannot equate it with science.

The rotating cote is the most energy intensive earth variable, next to the influence of the sun. However, it is not part of the taught science equation. None of the climate change computer models has this variable as part of their equation. If you leave out something so significant, you will have problems making accurate and believable predictions.

The new core of the earth is new and changes everything we know. However, change is not easy for those at the top of their profession, who control what is taught.

https://www.livescience.com/9313-earth-core-rotates-faster-surface-study-confirms.html

New discoveries are constantly being made, but that does not mean everything we learned before is "obsolete mythology" as you say earlier. That is ridiculous.

 

[JustHanging]

I don't know where you got that I believe any of those ideas. That's a straw man. Evolution is the correct answer, but it gets you nowhere with students if you force feed it to them and are unwilling to take the time to discuss and logically discredit those false ideas.

Nonsense, again you demonstrate your ignorance.

Your earlier posts make it clear that you do not understand what a scientific theory is, so how could you possibly "discuss and logically discredit those false ideas" in regards to the Theory of Evolution? Impossible.

 

[JustHanging]

Like I said, I never said anything about teaching.

OK. Sorry if that came out a harshly, no insult was intended whatsoever. I meant your comment was related to a lack of experience.

All I said that students should be able to hash out any dissent thry may have within a timely matter. Either "dedicate" a time slot to allow the students to discuss and debate or have them write an essay on why they dissent.

How much time do you think should be taken from teaching the curriculum and "dedicated" to teaching other "theories"? What other "theories" do you think should be discussed?

For example, how much time do you think a teacher should "dedicate" to "discuss and debate" Flat Earth "Theory"?

Finally, in order to have a "dissenting view", they would have to understand the mathematics, the theories, the data, and the data collection techniques behind those theories (which they obviously don't). Otherwise their entire argument is "NUH UH," and that does not belong in a science class.

 

[JustHanging]

What's even more pathetic is lying about being a teacher

,
I sincerely hope you are right. A teacher of science for 30+ years who does not know one of the most facts about science, what a Scientific Theory is, will have negatively impacted the learning of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of students.

What a terrible thing to have done..

 

[AGENT J]

1.)You are talking about a general sense of stereotyping (of which is often enough a true representation but also not).

2.) But 14,000,000 million votes to Donald Trump in the Republican Primaries tell us that this grouping is a matter of reality. This was not a Sanders/Clinton divide seen in the Democratic Primaries, nor the alarming amount of Democrat voters who later abstained in the General. And a very high percentage of Republicans approving of Donald Trump today, no matter his bad domestic/international policies, his systematic dismantling of American prestige and influence all over the world, and his poor behavior, also validates that grouping.

1.) correct and so is the OP
2.) no it does nothing of the sort LOL because it still doesnt change the fact of what I actually said. The loon in the OP does not represent all of the republicans/conservatives. Theres 32 million registered republicans.(thats just what we know, some states, many southeren and red, like texas dont register by party, i wish none did)

seems a few people want to try (and completely fail) to change what i said... it wont work

once again we are in the same spot
what i ACTUALLY said is a fact and it stands. what does voting conservative have to do with this nutter? he doesnt speak for them or represent them. That fact is still true.

it would be just as dishonest, biased and hypocritical as saying "have you ever considered <insert name here> blacks, whites, latinos, women, men, gays, straights, christians, muslims, jews etc etc erned today's grouping"

 

[Hicup]

Adolescent dinosaurs were present on Noah's Ark because adult dinosaurs would have been too big, Kezele said. "Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem," Kezele said.

Oh boy...

I mean.. Oh nevermind..


Tim-

 

[HenryChinaski]

Ben Carson stated publicly that he believes that the Egyptian pyramids were built by the biblical character Joseph for the purpose or storing grain. WTF is wrong with these people?

 

[Maccabee]

OK. Sorry if that came out a harshly, no insult was intended whatsoever. I meant your comment was related to a lack of experience.



How much time do you think should be taken from teaching the curriculum and "dedicated" to teaching other "theories"? What other "theories" do you think should be discussed?

That's up to the teacher to decide. Admittedly I'm not a teacher. However I don't see any harm in allowing 30 minutes, an hour, or even a special day for debate so long as it doesn't interfere with any schedules.

For example, how much time do you think a teacher should "dedicate" to "discuss and debate" Flat Earth "Theory"?

Finally, in order to have a "dissenting view", they would have to understand the mathematics, the theories, the data, and the data collection techniques behind those theories (which they obviously don't). Otherwise their entire argument is "NUH UH," and that does not belong in a science class.

Which is exactly why students should be allowed to express their dissent in detail. A good teacher will take this opportunity to encourage critical thinking. A teacher can set a rule to eliminate "NUH UH" arguments.

 

[MSgt]

1.) correct and so is the OP
2.) no it does nothing of the sort LOL because it still doesnt change the fact of what I actually said. The loon in the OP does not represent all of the republicans/conservatives. Theres 32 million registered republicans.(thats just what we know, some states, many southeren and red, like texas dont register by party, i wish none did)

seems a few people want to try (and completely fail) to change what i said... it wont work

once again we are in the same spot
what i ACTUALLY said is a fact and it stands. what does voting conservative have to do with this nutter? he doesnt speak for them or represent them. That fact is still true.

it would be just as dishonest, biased and hypocritical as saying "have you ever considered <insert name here> blacks, whites, latinos, women, men, gays, straights, christians, muslims, jews etc etc erned today's grouping"

Oh, I would agree on that. The loon in the OP is an example of an extreme and I'm sure doesn't represent a general consensus of conservatives. But his extremism does carry with it a couple things:

- It wasn't long ago that the general theme of conservatives was to support the notion that Global Warming was just a liberal hoax and that tomato paste was a vegetable.

- It is a constant general theme among conservatives to defend against a "war on Christmas" every December.

I mean, there's a lot of "loon" in this behavior that encourages the "loon" in the OP. It's these type of general themes that actual "loons" feed off of. And it makes sense because it has been a historical theme among Christians to deny science and dig-in when facts become uncomfortable to traditional doctrine. And it is that clinging to that idea of tradition that Christian conservatives are famous for.

We can argue the same thing when it comes to the Alt-Right and Antifa. It makes perfect sense that their extremism would exist on either the Right or the Left.

 

[JustHanging]

That's up to the teacher to decide. Admittedly I'm not a teacher. However I don't see any harm in allowing 30 minutes, an hour, or even a special day for debate so long as it doesn't interfere with any schedules.

OK, 30 minutes might allow someone who is into a flat earth bring up a couple of points and discuss those. So now what do you do about all the other "theories" out there, such as the Muslim, Christian, First Nations, creation stories? And all the stories within those religions such as the Christian Flood myth?

Which is exactly why students should be allowed to express their dissent in detail. A good teacher will take this opportunity to encourage critical thinking.

That was my point, students don't have the background knowledge "to express their dissent in detail." It would be like trying to have a meaningful discussion about the pros and cons of a cover 3 defense with students whose entire football knowledge was that the quarterback is allowed to throw the ball. Before they can discuss anything meaningful, they need to learn all the positions, and the responsibilities of each position.

That's the level high school science students are at, they are learning the basic theories that are at the core of the subject areas.

A teacher can set a rule to eliminate "NUH UH" arguments.

In the football analogy above, what else would the students have? That's the problem.

 

[AGENT J]

Oh, I would agree on that. The loon in the OP is an example of an extreme and I'm sure doesn't represent a general consensus of conservatives.

But his extremism(not all conservatives) does carry with it a couple things:

- It wasn't long ago that the general theme of conservatives was to support the notion that Global Warming was just a liberal hoax and that tomato paste was a vegetable.

- It is a constant general theme among conservatives to defend against a "war on Christmas" every December.

I mean, there's a lot of "loon" in this behavior that encourages the "loon" in the OP. It's these type of general themes that actual "loons" feed off of. And it makes sense because it has been a historical theme among Christians to deny science and dig-in when facts become uncomfortable to traditional doctrine. And it is that clinging to that idea of tradition that Christian conservatives are famous for.

We can argue the same thing when it comes to the Alt-Right and Antifa. It makes perfect sense that their extremism would exist on either the Right or the Left.

And that fact is all i actually said but it seemed to REALLY REALLY affect "some" people (not saying you) cause them to be triggered....lol

 

[justabubba]

Oh, I would agree on that. The loon in the OP is an example of an extreme and I'm sure doesn't represent a general consensus of conservatives. But his extremism does carry with it a couple things:

- It wasn't long ago that the general theme of conservatives was to support the notion that Global Warming was just a liberal hoax and that tomato paste was a vegetable.

- It is a constant general theme among conservatives to defend against a "war on Christmas" every December.

I mean, there's a lot of "loon" in this behavior that encourages the "loon" in the OP. It's these type of general themes that actual "loons" feed off of. And it makes sense because it has been a historical theme among Christians to deny science and dig-in when facts become uncomfortable to traditional doctrine. And it is that clinging to that idea of tradition that Christian conservatives are famous for.

We can argue the same thing when it comes to the Alt-Right and Antifa. It makes perfect sense that their extremism would exist on either the Right or the Left.

i missed it. what is the antifa position to which you alluded?

 

[justabubba]

OK, 30 minutes might allow someone who is into a flat earth bring up a couple of points and discuss those. So now what do you do about all the other "theories" out there, such as the Muslim, Christian, First Nations, creation stories? And all the stories within those religions such as the Christian Flood myth?



That was my point, students don't have the background knowledge "to express their dissent in detail." It would be like trying to have a meaningful discussion about the pros and cons of a cover 3 defense with students whose entire football knowledge was that the quarterback is allowed to throw the ball. Before they can discuss anything meaningful, they need to learn all the positions, and the responsibilities of each position.

That's the level high school science students are at, they are learning the basic theories that are at the core of the subject areas.



In the football analogy above, what else would the students have? That's the problem.

i remember these kinds of discussions in elementary class from the 50's. they were significant

columbus believed as others did not, that there was no end of the earth from which his ships would plummet. such thinking was unconventional and was what justified calling that indian-killing bastard a 'pioneer'

galileo was found by the church to be a heretic because of his heliocentric/copernican belief. again, that view of a sun centered universe was at odds with conventional belief

students should be offered an opportunity to challenge conventional belief much as columbus and galelio and copernicus did before. even if those alternative beliefs, such as the creation story and that global warming is false, are stupid

i have not seen a sound reason to deny students the chance to challenge conventional 'wisdom', no matter how dimwitted their challenges may be. it then provides the educator the prime opportunity to respond to such challenges with facts. such discussions might illuminate a population that has recently found it a swell idea to elect an idiot as president. that did not happen because we have a profoundly well-educated electorate

 

[JustHanging]

i remember these kinds of discussions in elementary class from the 50's. they were significant

columbus believed as others did not, that there was no end of the earth from which his ships would plummet. such thinking was unconventional and was what justified calling that indian-killing bastard a 'pioneer'

galileo was found by the church to be a heretic because of his heliocentric/copernican belief. again, that view of a sun centered universe was at odds with conventional belief

students should be offered an opportunity to challenge conventional belief much as columbus and galelio and copernicus did before. even if those alternative beliefs, such as the creation story and that global warming is false, are stupid

i have not seen a sound reason to deny students the chance to challenge conventional 'wisdom', no matter how dimwitted their challenges may be. it then provides the educator the prime opportunity to respond to such challenges with facts. such discussions might illuminate a population that has recently found it a swell idea to elect an idiot as president. that did not happen because we have a profoundly well-educated electorate

We aren't talking Columbus, where a ten year old can picture themselves charting unknown waters, we all played those games when we were little, and you could discuss what it felt like to be lost.

But we're talking science, where you can't have a meaningful discussion without an understanding of the core theories and mathematics that support the science. How are you going to challenge Geological theories without a firm understanding of the Plate Tectonic Theory, or challenge paths of movement without knowing Newtonian Physics, or challenge evolution without knowing genetics, or challenge radiometric dating without understanding radioactivity?

It would be like trying to have a meaningful discussion about the pros and cons of cover 3 defense with someone whose entire football knowledge consists of knowing the quarterback can throw the ball. Impossible. Before they can discuss anything meaningful, they need to learn all the positions, and the responsibilities of each position.

That's the level high school science students are at, they are learning the basic theories that are at the core of the subject areas.